The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Small Worlds and Cultural Polarization
Open accessAbstract
Building on Granovetter's theory of the “strength of weak ties,” research on “small-world” networks suggests that bridges between clusters in a social network (long-range ties) promote cultural diffusion, homogeneity, and integration. We show that this macro-level implication of network structure depends on hidden micro-level assumptions. Using a computational model similar to earlier studies, we find that ties between clusters facilitate cultural convergence under the micro-level assumptions of assimilation and attraction to similar others. However, these assumptions also have negative counterparts—differentiation and xenophobia. We found that when these negative possibilities are no longer assumed away, the effect of long-range ties reverses: Even very small amounts of contact between highly clustered communities sharply increased polarization at the population level. [An appendix to this article is featured as an online supplement at the publisher's website.]
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Another class of models describe polarization by introducing repulsive interactions, in which users reject opinions that differ from their own [24-26], but this mechanism combined with homophily leads to a decrease of polarization [27, 28].”
From Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks (2020) · cites this paper as [25]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/30918 · Cited by 43,060
Granovetter, M. S. (1973) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/225469 · Cited by 40,491
Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities.
Hopfield, J. J. (1982) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.79.8.2554 · Cited by 19,270
Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 · Cited by 18,567
The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century
Ikenberry, G. J., & Friedman, T. L. (2005) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20031715 · Cited by 4,210
Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation
Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 2,366
The Dissemination of Culture: A Model with Local Convergence and Global Polarization
Axelrod, R. (1997) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002797041002001 · Cited by 1,918
Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties
Centola, D., & Macy, M. (2007) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/521848 · Cited by 1,878
Self-citationSocial Pressures in Informal Groups
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3707362 · Cited by 1,831
Networks, Dynamics, and the Small‐World Phenomenon
Watts, D. J. (1999) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/210318 · Cited by 1,510
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Harary F., 1959, Studies in Social Power, 168
- Hegselmann R., 2002, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5
- Klemm K., 2003, Physical Review E, 67
- Klemm K., 2003, Physical Review E, 67
- Latané B., 1997, Progress in Communication Science: Persuasion, 43
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Models of Social Influence: Towards the Next Frontiers
Flache, A., Mäs, M., Feliciani, T., Chattoe-Brown, E., Deffuant, G., Huet, S., & Lorenz, J. (2017) · Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation · doi:10.18564/jasss.3521 · Cited by 601
Self-citationA tutorial on modeling and analysis of dynamic social networks. Part I
Proskurnikov, A. V., & Tempo, R. (2017) · Annual Reviews in Control · doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2017.03.002 · Cited by 577
Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks
Baumann, F., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Sokolov, I. M., & Starnini, M. (2020) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.048301 · Cited by 427
Novel Multidimensional Models of Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks
Parsegov, S. E., Proskurnikov, A. V., Tempo, R., & Friedkin, N. E. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2016.2613905 · Cited by 402
Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks With Hostile Camps: Consensus vs. Polarization
Proskurnikov, A. V., Matveev, A. S., & Cao, M. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2015.2471655 · Cited by 387
Metadata
- Authors
- FLACHE, A., & MACY, M. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Groningen (NL)
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- FLACHE, ANDREAS
- Venue
- The Journal of Mathematical Sociology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-01-25
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 1-3
- Pages
- 146-176
- ISSN
- 0022-250X (ISSN-L)
- 1545-5874
- OpenAlex
- W2005766286
- Cited by
- 237
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 7.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2017-05-31)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Mathematical Sociology (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (452-04-351)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Capital and Networks
- Keywords
- small-world networks, cultural polarization, cultural diffusion, social network structure, assimilation, xenophobia, differentiation, cultural convergence, Granovetter, computational model
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
